Jury Vetting - background. 

In 1978 jury vetting was legitimised and recognised later by the Court of Appeal in R v Mason (1980). Because of the strong lobby of objectors to jury vetting it might be helpful as well as interesting to you to be acquainted with the background to this development.

In 1966 Lord Chancellor Viscount Dilhorne disclosed that he had removed a Communist from the jury in a spy trial. In 1972 during a trial involving suspected IRA members, six skilled labourers were stood down from the jury. In 1978 during the Welsh Language Society Conspiracy Case, prosecuting counsel, on the advice of Special Branch, challenged two jurors. How random was the sample of the Carmarthen population the jury represented? The jury contained a minority of people with Welsh surnames and only two spoke Welsh.

In 1973 Bruce Douglas-Mann MP accused Lord Hailsham of instructing vetting. He denied it "vehemently": "I am unalterably opposed to anything except random selection. It is the only way you can run a jury system".

In 1974 Brian Sedgemore MP asked the Home Secretary about vetting. The Home Secretary found that vetting was taking place.

The Home Secretary, Attorney-General and Director of Public Prosecutions drew up guidelines establishing a code of practice for jury vetting which continued quietly. Four years later all this became known at the Official Secrets Trial 1978. Lord Hutchison QC defending, made it clear he was unhappy about vetting having taken place by the prosecution about 'loyal' jurors. The Defence found that the foreman had been a member of the Special Air Service Regiment and applied to have the jury discharged. The request was at first refused but after TV exposure the judge complied. Between the first and second trial the judge fell ill and was replaced by Mr. Justice Mars-Jones with a new and vetted jury. It was during this trial that the Attorney-General revealed the guidelines on vetting.

A summary of those guidelines is as follows:

A person will in general be disqualified or ineligible for jury service as provided by the Jury Act 1974 and Juries (Disqualification) Act 1984.

Where a case involves national security and part of the case is likely to be heard 'in camera' (secret) or in terrorist cases, extra precaution may be necessary but checks involving strong political motives will not be made, except in terrorist cases or where national security is involved.

Checks on CID records and those of police special branches may only be made on the authority of the Attorney-General following a recommendation from the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP).

Thus the DPP is now duly authorised to vet juries. It is ironic that in 1974 when vetting was obviously being considered, the Juries Act was passed in Parliament. Without the vetting guidelines, however, the Act provides a somewhat incomplete picture. Police checks on criminal records for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not a jury panel includes a disqualified person under the Jury Act 1974 will probably continue. Though, vetting on grounds of race or gender is not permitted.

extract from Seneca EP copyright EMIS Professional Publishing and Authors 2001 ñ Telephone 01492 870434

Key Skills Exercise 3.1b

This is a key skills exercise! If you wish to take this opportunity to complete a key skills exercise you should download and print off the 'key skills tracking sheet' and tell your Law and Citizenship teacher before the lesson commences (please note that you can undertake a key skills exercise in other subject or tutorial classes).

To undertake this key skills exercise you will need to present the contents of this page to your fellow students in class - using at least one image.